Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

Trampling – “the Consent of the Governed”

“… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration of Independence

Trampling – “the Consent of the Governed”

Violating their statutory rules, the Senate has not produced a budget in three years. Senator Kirk Conrad, Chairman of the Budget Committee, intended to create a budget based on the Bowles-Simpson commission, which the President and Congress have ignored for two years. Most likely bowing to pressures from Senator Harry Reid and the Democratic caucus, Conrad delayed an open debate and vote until after this year’s election. According to the New York Times, Senator Conrad has stated:

“It’s unlikely we will reach agreement until after the election,” he said. “That’s just reality.”

“Reality” is code for Congress and the President intentionally deceiving the governed – We the People. Rather than having an open debate on the most important issue of our era – the enormous and exploding debt – the Senate will wait until the elections are completed. Therefore, prior to the election, voters will not be adequately apprised of the size and impact of the debt. Worse, the public will not be informed or consulted on the proffered solutions. And wrongfully, voters will be denied a vote on the decisions made in a lame-duck session...for at least two years. Senator Conrad, this is immoral and is trampling on the core component of self-government.

Most despicable is the evisceration of the 20th Amendment, which intended to prevent lame-duck sessions. In the 1930’s, the 20th Amendment became part of our Constitution to prohibit legislation being promulgated by Members of Congress that were no-longer accountable to the electorate.

Presently, Congress and the President are intentionally ignoring the intent of the 20th Amendment and are plotting to enact far-reaching pieces of legislation. There are many tax issues and budget issues impacting nearly every American that either expire or are activated on January 1, 2013. Again, the New York Times reports:

On Jan. 1, the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire, which would raise income tax rates on virtually every household; increase estate, dividend and capital gains tax rates; and shrink popular deductions like the child credit. More than $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts would also kick in, creating what the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, has called an $8 trillion “fiscal cliff.”

If Congress honored the philosophy, intent and the meaning of the Constitution, all of the tax and spending cuts should have an open debate with We the People. Conversely, Congress is plotting to trample on the American people: For example Senator Wyden eagerly awaits for the elections to be concluded. And the New York Times reports:

“Everybody’s waiting for the moment,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who is negotiating with Senator Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana, to prepare a tax overhaul for the lame-duck session.

Cowardly, arrogantly and harmfully, Congress intends to act on legislation that should be considered prior to the election along with an open participation of We the People with our elected Members of Congress.

Disgracefully, major legislation has been enacted in many lame-duck sessions for the past few years. Morally and realistically, a great society cannot continue to excel when the elected leaders intentionally disregard the rule of law and disrespect a basic tenant of self-governance – “the consent of the governed.”

Thought you might like this idea to allow "We the People" to have a direct Voice on the issues that effect our lives..
Say “NO” to being “Misrepresented”

Say “YES” to a plan to “Represent Your Self”

Article 1
Our Founding Fathers believed that the very 1st Right in the “Bill of Rights” to help the American People protect themselves from the over-reach of the Federal Government should be “Freedom of Speech or VOICE”
This is the tool that we need in each community to allow “the People” to decide what role they want and don`t want their Federal Government to play in their lives..Please share this information...Ron Paul or any other President cannot do this alone..He needs this tool and the help from the American PEOPLE...

There is a way!!!

Please check out this plan to GIVE ALL AMERICANS A "VOICE" ON THE ISSUES THAT EFFECT THEIR LIVES, not just the politicians.
A real 21st Century Plan for America...
Hear it here and see it at http://onevoicenow.info/?page_id=95

People Empowerment Grouphttp://onevoicenow.info/?page_id=95
Our mission is to educate and give a voice to the people of our community by establishing the communication technology, which allows them to participate and have a continuous voice on governmental, political, and community issues.

When this communist government starts arresting WE THE PEOPLE for FREE SPEECH, DON'T start rioting, because that's the excuse for the planned MARTIAL LAW. What needs to be done to fight this communist government is to go after those in the government. Take them, kidnap them, and hold them ransom for our FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS. Get them as HIGH up in the government as you can. If they don't start complying, hang them for being the traitors that they are. But do it quietly, with no witnesses, a few at a time, as gorilla warfare.
This communist government doesn't fight gorilla warfare very well at all. Just don't be noticed and this communist government won't be able to prove who's doing it.

I am absolutely opposed to any suggestion of violence. My post strongly condemns the politicial and moral actions of many politicians. However, there are two peaceful means of correcting these transgressions. Vote them out of office. Or the politicians conform to the intent and spirit of “the consent of the governed.”

Private property has always had a unique place in American society. The Founding Fathers recognized that government exists to protect private property. They were influenced by Enlightenment-era philosophers John Locke and Adam Smith, who believed the right to property was a fundamental, natural right. Donald Trump, however, appears to believe that private property can be taken on a whim by the influential and politically-connected.

Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court effectively scratched the line “for public use” from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which allows the government to take and repurpose private property. The 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London said that property may be taken from one private owner and given to another private owner if it will generate more revenue for the city.

The Supreme Court has taken an active role in redefining, rather than simply interpreting, our country’s laws. Two clear examples of this can be seen in the two ObamaCare opinions written by Chief Justice Roberts, NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. Whether it is calling a penalty a tax, or saying an exchange established by Kathleen Sebelius was established by the states, the Supreme Court is playing an active role in changing legislation.

Many Americans are eagerly (and nervously) awaiting the King v. Burwell decision, which is expected to come at the end of the month. The court case will determine whether ObamaCare, which looks to be falling apart independently of legal intervention, is illegally providing subsidies to those enrolled in the exchange.

Normally to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must establish standing. There are three requirements for establishing standing: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and (3) the injury would be redressed by a favorable court ruling.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is often called the “Elastic Clause” because it is believed to give Congress “implied powers” that government is assumed to possess without being mentioned in the Constitution. There is a problem with this view: a government that is able to expand its power through an “Elastic Clause” is more likely to abuse its power.

It has been assumed that once the Supreme Court issues a decision, the other courts in this country are bound to follow the decision for all future cases that fall within the announced rule. However, it can be argued that in most circumstances, neither the Constitution nor federal law requires other courts to follow the Supreme Court. Indeed, it has been the Supreme Court itself that has demanded that their decision be binding on future cases. This seems to be the type of usurpation of power is the type our Founders detested and the Constitution was meant to prohibit.